I think these seriously need to be sorted out.

Time and time again one of my opponents end up with a time penalty, but the penalty ends up potting their ball, allowing them to have another shot. If that doesn't happen, the penalty will end up snookering me, meaning they've been rewarded for failing to take their shot in time.

This happens too often. I think ANY time a player receives a penalty, it should be counted as a foul because they didn't take their shot in time. I know people have problems with lag (me included) and may be timed out, but it's unfair when a player gets an advantage for not doing anything.

True, the effect of not taking your shot in time should never ever be an advantage. Nick even raised this topic himself a while back, but if I recall right, it was talking down by the "Goodie two-shoes, lets-all-hold-hands" bastion, who apparently fealt not making a shot in time is not the players fault and that an automatic foul would somehow be wrong. A line of thought that borders the absurd.


An automatic foul is the obvious, simple to implement, and fair choice. If a player struggles with connection or computer issues, TOO BAD. It's still a lot more fair that this player suffers from those problems, than the problems one player has being imposed on the opponent too.

The only exception to this is killer - where a ball in hand usually has very devastating consequences for the next player in line, but that's a problem with the foul and ball-in-hand in that game type in general, and not related to random shots. Random shots should be automatic foul in killer too, just that that game needs a different foul handling all together. (which raises the question of what the alternative might be - and which has the rather sad answer that there isn't really any)

Agreed Jan. Killer is a different situation, one which would need to be discussed in more depth. However, when it comes to the rest of the games, it should always be a penalty for randoms. I'm fed up of watching my opponent being timed out, only to pot their ball, snooker me, or even displace one of mines when it was in a perfectly good position. It happens too regularly for it to be swept aside as "unlucky".

I don't really encounter it often enough to really get worked up over, but in principle that is perfectly irrelevant. Even if it happened only once every 1 million timeouts, it would still be wrong.

also another point (maybe for different thread but ill post it here anyways) is when you foul on straight or 9 ball for instant theres no pass back button, what if theres nothing on, say 8 and 9 blocking each other on cushion and other person fouls, at the moment that person is forced to play a cannon which 9/10 you would lose the game because of it.

Well, you still have other options than a cannon, you can also choose to play a careful tap, a snooker attempt, or even a clean foul back, but still, a button to pass the table back to the fouling player would been nice - in all 2-player games.

i was playing 9 ball when i 1st started and had to go downstairs for something, when i came back it said i had won with a 2-9 combo with a random shot lol

yeah but thats not point really tho jan, but i agree i could just pot the white to give it back. its kind of hard to tap if its a tables length away.

should just get classed as a no shot, no 2shots about it just ball left where it's placed and your shot. Would make the game more intresting without given you a carry for them not being there, would be them penalised just like your complaining about a disadvantage, if they suddenly have to go away from pc bit unfair to give them a disadvantage when you complain about 1.

so breifly, me vs DG, i go away from pc to get a drink or take an important phonecall, miss my shot timer, ball remains put, he gets a shot to continue to play.

the trouble with that is if you are in trouble surely you can then just let the clock expire and the opponent then faces the difficult shot? I guess they have the option to then do that back to you and so on until someone plays a shot or gets booted but thats not really improving gameplay.

jan is quite right in his opinion elsewhere that everyone is free to play and enjoy the game in any way they wish. I would wager most random penalties are due to players doing other things whilst they are playing. That surely is them enjoying the game how they wish to in the knowledge that should they miss a shot one will be played for them - yes it might be a good one but more often than not it won't be.

I still like the idea that random shots are made unannounced therefore no one will ever know for sure what happened - or at least unannounced as far as the opposing player is concerned. Besides most online games allow play to continue normally in a player's absence and the only difference here is that it does it with no real AI.

even if it becomes unannounced most of the time you'd be able to tell if they ment it for example missing every single ball, directly hitting there's etc, wouldn't take a genius to work out they wernt there to play the shot

Fortunately there arent many of those on here

Don't get me wrong I don't particularly have strong views either way on this ...... other than.......

....trying to make sure that if it was an automatic foul then you weren't able to gain an outright advantage from simply not playing a shot. But that view applies equally to someone playing deliberate fouls currently. A deliberate foul should be a considered risk aimed at limiting your damage - you should not be able to gain an advantage from one but thats a different discussion i guess.

The rules would differ for UK and US. My main concern was US because you only get one shot for a foul anyway. My latest incident involved my opponent hitting their stripe, leaving me a black which wasn't pottable without fouling the white, which lead to me losing the frame.

Situations like these aren't fair on a player at all. In UK it could get even worse if the random snookers you from your own ball, and you end up fouling leaving your opponent a carry.

The current system with randoms is completely unfair, and I think it really needs to be changed. I'm tired of losing games because my opponent "gets lucky".

How can having a computer take your shot instead of you be considered "getting lucky"?

Even if a random shot penalty works 100% in your favour it is still a penalty because you lost the opportunity to take the shot the way you wanted, plain and simple.

To say a timeout should be an automatic foul is completely illogical simply because no pool rule has been broken.

The thing most people seem to ignore when this comes up is that it is beyond absurd to sugest that there should be a rule that prevents their opponent making a lucky shot! (whether it be random or taken by them is irrelevant - or do you consider a fluke by a human different to a fluke by computer?)

Therefore I reiterate my suggestion for elimnating these threads from cropping up - disable the announcement that a shot was random. Then nobody will ever know, nor care.

I played someone in 9 Ball and they got a random shot and got a combo and won. It's rather annoying. :L

Erm, when the computer does the potting for the player, or when it snookers the player's opponent.



That may be, but at the same time it can give them a helping hand in winning a game, meaning it isn't really a penalty at all.



It's almost as illogical as being timed out of a shot in the first place, when in the real world you get all the time you want to take a shot. And seeing as this is a game, it's not illogical at all. Just look at midgett's post. How on earth is it fair that his opponent did nothing apart from watch their screen, and yet they won the game?

Erm, yes. The human takes the shot, and that's the result that should stand. Why should a computer hit the shot for them?



That wont change anything - it will still be as unfair as before.

This is the bit that matters.

You are saying it will still be unfair whether the computer takes the shot or the opponent, as you would have no way of knowing which.

Do we want to change the rules so that opponents never get a lucky shot? For that matter, what is a lucky shot, or fluke? Both are entirely open to interpetation. What may seem like a lucky shot to one person may have been carefully planned by the opponent.

It sometimes turns out lucky. And even it it's just sometimes, even occasionally or even rarely, even once in a million is once too much.

If the player isn't present, the random will occasionally yield a positive result, maintaining their visit or playing a good snooker on the opposition.

Point in hand tho: Why should we NOT change to an automatic foul?

You carry the burden of proof here Dave. You have a point to make - not us.




You forfeited your shot - you didn't lose anything. And you deserve to be penalized for it in a way that ensures it is to your disadvantage and to your opponent's advantage. Plain and simple.



Incorrect at best! The requirements for your shot is to make a legal shot within the allotted time. If you fail to do so, a foul is exactly what you have just done. It's perfectly ok to do so deliberately, but it is still a darn foul.



I take offense at that. If you think the users of this site are that naive, think again!

Edited at 03:47 Sun 23/05/10 (BST)

An odd view, but a very simple one to answer. No foul has been commited, so there is no reason to award a foul shot.




If a user doesn't get to play exactly the shot they want, power and spin included, then they have lost the most fundimental right they have in the game. Pretty big penalty that, if anything worse than conceeding a foul.



I don't understand this one at all. Do you mean all users have some sort of sixth sense which can tell them whether or not a shot is random? Or will it just be assumed that anytime someone plays a poor shot close to the time limit, it was a randomly generated one?

If it were possible for offence to be taken from an online pool game, that may be a possible scenario

At the end of the day, this is one of those things that crops up as a thread only a few times a year, with only a few people wanting it changed, all of whom quote times where they feel the shot has beaten them.

It is just human nature that we never see threads complaining about the random shot working out in their favour, as clearly there muct be equaly as many people in this situation.

What is abundantly clear is that the vast majority of site users are quite happy with the current system.

Edited at 09:11 Sun 23/05/10 (BST)